Topic: Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters - page 4. (Read 47796 times)
Thats your characterisation. As I already pointed out to you, it falls apart because Dash is not a fiat currency. It is an electronic commodity which is freely traded on the open market against other equivalents so it requires to be economically viable for all parties concerned. It is not mandatory, exclusive government money and therefore "seigniorage" applies only by the most stretched analogy as the ones you're attempting to make.
Seigniorage is not limited to fiat currencies. Seigniorage is the value one gets "for free" (that is, without counter party in delivered goods and services and without risk taking) when issuing monetary units. That is, seigniorage is the market value of the issued monetary tokens, minus the cost of making them. Seigniorage is in general perceived as unfair. The main example is of course with fiat money, but in mining crypto, it is the market value of the coin minus the cost of the mining. In perfect competition with a PoW system, the cost of proof of work will be almost equal to the value of the mined coins (from the moment there is a margin, there is an opportunity and an extra miner will get in to reap the margin, increasing the difficulty for all until almost no margin is left).
Mining, nor networking, contributes anything of "valuation". It is the other way around.
Really ?
Maybe we'd better ask the miners, holders, developers, commercial supporters & wallet developers which of them is the chicken and which is the egg. Good luck in getting that view endorsed
Of course it is the belief system value of the coin that determines the mining cost, and not the other way around. That's even explained in the Satoshi paper. It is not the mining that gives value to the coin. It is the coin that can afford to pay for mining. That's an elementary part of crypto coin economics.
Otherwise, it would be simple: invest in a $50 billion per year mining equipment, and no problem, your market cap will go into the trillions...
The market value of a coin is belief and nothing else. But that is also the case for the dollar, and even for gold (apart from a tiny usage value). The market value of a coin doesn't find its origin in the cost of mining, at all.
But there is a happy link: a cheap coin doesn't need a heavily protected block chain, simply because it isn't worth it. If the market cap is low, then the incentive to attack the chain is low, and hence no strong mining protection (difficulty) is necessary. On the other hand, if the market cap is high, there is a much higher incentive to do a 51% attack, and hence, such a chain needs a higher difficulty. As the difficulty is paid by the seigniorage, and the seigniorage on a high value coin is higher, there is this happy circumstance that the protection by difficulty adapts automatically to the coin value.... until the inflation rate becomes too small if there is no other incentive such as a fee market or tail emission.
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Not true, if you read dash thread you will see I was there at the beginning to mine and he screwed on 2 failed launches until he got his instamine right. So try to keep your fact straight and don't try to rewrite history on these boards.You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
says the person heavily involved in the Monero community
thanks for just proving my point.
Well i'm done wasting any more energy on this thread, you can all bump it all you want .. it just doesn't matter.
I have not held any XMR for 3 months. check my posts. I am completely open about my crypto.
Any reasons in particular why you sold?
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Not true, if you read dash thread you will see I was there at the beginning to mine and he screwed on 2 failed launches until he got his instamine right. So try to keep your fact straight and don't try to rewrite history on these boards.You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
says the person heavily involved in the Monero community
thanks for just proving my point.
Well i'm done wasting any more energy on this thread, you can all bump it all you want .. it just doesn't matter.
I have not held any XMR for 3 months. check my posts. I am completely open about my crypto.
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Not true, if you read dash thread you will see I was there at the beginning to mine and he screwed on 2 failed launches until he got his instamine right. So try to keep your fact straight and don't try to rewrite history on these boards.You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
says the person heavily involved in the Monero community
thanks for just proving my point.
Well i'm done wasting any more energy on this thread, you can all bump it all you want .. it just doesn't matter.
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Not true, if you read dash thread you will see I was there at the beginning to mine and he screwed on 2 failed launches until he got his instamine right. So try to keep your fact straight and don't try to rewrite history on these boards. You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread.
To the Dash market it obviously doesn't matter as can be observed from longterm Dash charts :
Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Dash community moved on, Dash markets moved on .. Monero community got stuck on this issue. What else is new...
For those interested in reading up on the Dash instamine : https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread.
To the Dash market it obviously doesn't matter as can be observed from longterm Dash charts :
Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Dash community moved on, Dash markets moved on .. Monero community got stuck on this issue. What else is new...
For those interested in reading up on the Dash instamine : https://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118
Part of it is distributed to masternode owners, to 'bribe' them in holding their coins.
Thats your characterisation. As I already pointed out to you, it falls apart because Dash is not a fiat currency. It is an electronic commodity which is freely traded on the open market against other equivalents so it requires to be economically viable for all parties concerned. It is not mandatory, exclusive government money and therefore "seigniorage" applies only by the most stretched analogy as the ones you're attempting to make.
Mining, nor networking, contributes anything of "valuation". It is the other way around.
Really ?
Maybe we'd better ask the miners, holders, developers, commercial supporters & wallet developers which of them is the chicken and which is the egg. Good luck in getting that view endorsed
All the same, people can and will characterise it how they like so be my guest. The fact is the network requires collateral for security and is able to pay a premium for it, so there's a trade to be made.
The point is that only PART of the inflation and the associated seigniorage is "burned" in PoW, contrary to bitcoin, where (almost) all of it is burned. Part of it is distributed to masternode owners, to 'bribe' them in holding their coins. That lowers the effective market cap, and increases the value of a single coin, as less of them are on the market.
Quote
You're conveniently omitting the two dimensions of the 'deal' which make it work and - at the same time - render it nothing whatsoever resembling "seigniorage". Firstly, the tokens are created by a POW algo, not out of thin air.
Yes, but given the fact that the PoW is only financed by 45% of the inflation, there's 55% token creation which is not "burned" by PoW, and hence, pure seigniorage, like printing dollar bills where the effort to print them is negligible compared to their value.
PoW burns seigniorage. That's the good thing about it: you "make" new money, but you spend it on PoW expenditures. There is inflation, but nobody is profiting from it individually. The inflation pays for the PoW, which secures the chain.
Quote
Secondly, both the miner AND the node-network contribute to the valuation of those tokens against other currencies - and thats the important part AGAINST OTHER CURRENCIES.
Mining, nor networking, contributes anything of "valuation". It is the other way around. It is the monetary belief that ALLOWS the expenditures on networking and mining. The mining itself has a very small value (apart from securing the chain).
It is not because some idiot would spend suddenly $50 billion on mining, that the coin he's mining will get a market cap of $50 billion. It is because the coin has instigated some monetary belief, that it can AFFORD to spend a lot on mining.
Quote
Characterising this as "seigniorage" is about as useful as saying that the cost of combine harvesters is a tax on grain. i.e. technically correct and may prove interesting in bitcointalk trollthreads, but economically irrelevant.
I think you have the valuation of a cryptocoin backward. A cryptocoin's valuation is an infinitely recursive belief system (as is any monetary system). If that belief system works, then it can pay itself a high level of mining. In bitcoin, about all inflation is used for mining, because one wants nobody to profit from seigniorage. In DASH, about 55% of the inflation goes to masternodes and the developers as seigniorage, and only 45% is burned as PoW.
I'm disputing the phrase where the DASH locked up in master nodes is compared to savings in a normal monetary economy. It isn't savings, where the return comes from investment in production capital which augments the value of the economy. It is locking up money to get seigniorage.
If that privilege can be purchased by all and sundry then - by definition it isn't seigniorage is it. So I think that kind of blows the case slightly to pieces, regardless of how many times you like to cram that word into a single post.
All the same, people can and will characterise it how they like so be my guest. The fact is the network requires collateral for security and is able to pay a premium for it, so there's a trade to be made.
I meant: getting free seigniorage for being part of the master node elite as a "tax" on the money creators (miners) and hence pocketing the loss of value by inflation without any risk taking is exactly what a central bank does with its interest rate.
You're conveniently omitting the two dimensions of the 'deal' which make it work and - at the same time - render it nothing whatsoever resembling "seigniorage". Firstly, the tokens are created by a POW algo, not out of thin air. Secondly, both the miner AND the node-network contribute to the valuation of those tokens against other currencies - and thats the important part AGAINST OTHER CURRENCIES. The miner is effectively engaging in a trade with rest of the network stakeholders to support the value of the mining reward. That trade manifests itself as an equilibrium between network hashrate, network nodecount and exchange rate against other currencies.
Characterising this as "seigniorage" is about as useful as saying that the cost of combine harvesters is a tax on grain. i.e. technically correct and may prove interesting in bitcointalk trollthreads, but economically irrelevant.
Whether the 'money' changes hands or not isn't the relevant point since the monetary objective is to earn a return for its holders and the technical objective is to provide some security for masternodes.
Of course not. That is "greater fool theory". The only monetary objective is to serve as a means of exchange in a stable economic environment. Nobody holding dollars under his bed is expecting a "return for him holding dollars".
The way to earn a return in a normal economy is to invest: that is, to put earned income not directly into consumption, but to have entrepreneurs use it to buy capital goods. That's called saving.
In DASH, because the miner will only receive 45% of the seigniorage, competition will only make him burn 45% of the seigniorage in PoW, and the rest goes in the pockets of Master nodes and the "gouvernors". Now, that is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to central banking and their interest rates on issued currency feeding a whole bunch of elite with free money, taxed by inflation on all the others.
Except is IS'NT central banking since Dash lives in an open monetary ecosystem and is continuously traded against other cryptocurrency assets.
I meant: getting free seigniorage for being part of the master node elite as a "tax" on the money creators (miners) and hence pocketing the loss of value by inflation without any risk taking is exactly what a central bank does with its interest rate.
I'm not implying the rest of a central banker's role, but pocketing part of the seigniorage is one of its principal functions.
Quote
That has led to more, not fewer holders over the last 2 years, contrary to the argument implied by that paragraph. What matters is that it works as a monetary medium and the data on all fronts are in its favour on that count: valuation, mining participation, industry support, masternode takeup, development growth etc.
Whether DASH has success in the market or not is not what I'm disputing. I'm disputing the phrase where the DASH locked up in master nodes is compared to savings in a normal monetary economy. It isn't savings, where the return comes from investment in production capital which augments the value of the economy. It is locking up money to get seigniorage. That was my point. That's not the same.
Quote
None of the Dash coin supply is "locked up". ALL masternode collateral is as mobile as any other part of the blockchain and I'm sure you already know that.
I know that. But it is locked up because of the seigniorage incentive.
Imagine that the FED tells you the following: *if you put a million dollars in a box here, then we will print you $100 000 a year for free*. THIS is the economic equivalent to the master nodes. Of course a lot of people holding millions of dollars are going to put that in boxes at the FED and are going to receive freshly printed dollars. As long as this freshly printed dollar stuff is lucrative as compared to really INVESTING that money in *production capital*, effectively those dollars will remain in the boxes, and the ACTUAL CIRCULATING MONEY SUPPLY is way way lower than all the dollars existing in those boxes.
Imagine that there are 6 billion dollars but that 4 billion dollars is in those boxes. As long as this system is working, you could actually burn those 4 billion dollar in boxes, as long as you keep sending $ 100 000 a year to all their previous owners. Market-wise that is equivalent, because you've now set a THRESHOLD for people to take out their dollars out of these boxes: what they are going to do with it, risk aversion included, should reward them more than the risk-free $100 000 they get any way.
That is totally different from JUST holding a million dollars in a box with no specific seigniorage. There is no threshold to put these back on the market. There is no incentive to keep them in a box apart from thinking that this is the best store of value. From the moment that there IS a positive investment available, these people WILL put their million into an investment. But if you receive $ 100 000 "for free", the threshold to get them out of your box is much higher and as long as they are locked up, we can actually forget about them on the market.
Quote
The marketcap is therefore correctly reported. The fact that some holders have an incentive to not sell is not a basis that allows you to redefine marketcap - it's a basis for calling it a viable investment thats all.
Nope, exactly because of the threshold that I just explained. You have to find a better investment than the free seigniorage to even get out one coin. So until this threshold is reached, these coins are effectively locked up.
Quote
"The Elite" in this case being potentially every last Dash holder, given that they are able to invest in Dash's reserve market even with the smallest holding.
This is a mechanism I wasn't aware of. Can I be, say, a master node share holder with, say, 10 DASH and obtain my interest, that is, my part of the 45% of the mining ?
The coins held in Master nodes are not production investment that earns interest as in a normal currency reserve system...That money keeps flowing, in other words, it is not locked up in a box as is the case in a Master node.
So what ?
Whether the 'money' changes hands or not isn't the relevant point since the monetary objective is to earn a return for its holders and the technical objective is to provide some security for masternodes. If both those objectives are being met in a complimentary manner then there is a basis for value and demand. I think there's been enough of a track record now to put that debate to bed.
The "interest earning" in Master nodes is nothing else but a re-distribution of seigniorage by mining ; in other words, a tax on every currency holder, that goes in the pockets of Master node holders: a transfer of wealth from active users to "passive possessors".
You are right in that it's a redistribution of the mining rewards - and a very effective one at that. Characterise it as a "tax" if you like but it's a bit of a stretch since: A - all coin holders can benefit to the extent of their holding, whether they are above or below the mastenode collateral threshold and B - the configuration now has a track record of success across all stakeholder sectors including holders (through supporting the market valuation), developers (through the decentralised blockchain funding), commercial participants (through blockchain funding and growing wallet support) and miners (see growing network hashrate).
In DASH, because the miner will only receive 45% of the seigniorage, competition will only make him burn 45% of the seigniorage in PoW, and the rest goes in the pockets of Master nodes and the "gouvernors". Now, that is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to central banking and their interest rates on issued currency feeding a whole bunch of elite with free money, taxed by inflation on all the others.
Except is IS'NT central banking since Dash lives in an open monetary ecosystem and is continuously traded against other cryptocurrency assets. That has led to more, not fewer holders over the last 2 years, contrary to the argument implied by that paragraph. What matters is that it works as a monetary medium and the data on all fronts are in its favour on that count: valuation, mining participation, industry support, masternode takeup, development growth etc.
Also because of this lucrative locking up of a large part of the money supply in master nodes, the ACTUAL available market cap of DASH is way lower than is calculated
Only if one is a clueless bitcointalk troll who likes to redefine 'marketcap' on a whim. (I'm not suggesting you're a troll, but you do appear to be equally creative with the term).
None of the Dash coin supply is "locked up". ALL masternode collateral is as mobile as any other part of the blockchain and I'm sure you already know that. If you fire up a wallet and send a transaction to an exchange, the wallet will not care where those funds are located as long as it has control of them, hence you'll see coin supply flowing to exchanges from collateralised addresses just as freely as non-collateralised ones.
The marketcap is therefore correctly reported. The fact that some holders have an incentive to not sell is not a basis that allows you to redefine marketcap - it's a basis for calling it a viable investment.
This implies re-centralisation, governance, and hence, taxes and lucrative happenings for the elite which get richer.
"The Elite" in this case being potentially every last Dash holder, given that they are able to invest in Dash's reserve market even with the smallest holding. You don't like the fact that large holders are incentivised to re-invest their returns in that same reserve market ? Tough ! I DO like it, at least a whole lot more than them not being so.
The fact is, as with any successful monetary asset, they are at least as incentivised to liquidate their profits since - as I've already pointed out - Dash lives in an open market. The valuation will therefore reach an equilibrium between them holding and liquidating. There is always a price at which decentralisation of holdings occurs and I think you'll find that some early whales are nowhere near as paunchy as they were a couple of years ago
Ok I get it now. So it is no good. But can anyone explain why the price is rising?
It's rising because it's one of the most coherent monetary assets on coinmarketcap, being that it retains bitcoin's blokchain transparency while improving massively on its fungibility to the point that distinguishing characteristics between addresses are effectively eliminated.
Further, Dash has established a balanced approach between reserve and currency markets thats almost unmatched by any other cryptocurrency asset. That's to say that while some proportion of the coin supply is made available by holders on exchanges for trading, a significant proportion of the rest of it is deployed on the network and earns a return for its holders.
This is in fact not really true. The coins held in Master nodes are not production investment that earns interest as in a normal currency reserve system, where "saving" is in fact (delegated) investment in production capital. In other words, "saved" money in a normal monetary economy are not "put in a box" but are again actively used by entrepreneurs to buy production capital. That money keeps flowing, in other words, it is not locked up in a box as is the case in a Master node.
The "interest earning" in Master nodes is nothing else but a re-distribution of seigniorage by mining ; in other words, a tax on every currency holder, that goes in the pockets of Master node holders: a transfer of wealth from active users to "passive possessors".
In a normal economy, the interest earned comes from the risk taken. A master node locked up doesn't take the slightest bit of risk but earns 45% of the seigniorage.
You can say that in bitcoin too, there is inflation because of mining. However, because in bitcoin, the full seigniorage goes to the miner, that miner will also be pushed by competition to BURN most of the seigniorage in PoW. In DASH, because the miner will only receive 45% of the seigniorage, competition will only make him burn 45% of the seigniorage in PoW, and the rest goes in the pockets of Master nodes and the "gouvernors". Now, that is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to central banking and their interest rates on issued currency feeding a whole bunch of elite with free money, taxed by inflation on all the others.
In bitcoin, at least, this "tax" is entirely (or almost entirely) burned by PoW, so there is not really a self-accumulation of wealth without risk by the "richies of the first hour(s)".
Also because of this lucrative locking up of a large part of the money supply in master nodes, the ACTUAL available market cap of DASH is way lower than is calculated, because the available coin supply is seriously lower than the total number of coins existing.
But all this is not to point out that DASH is a kind of rip off. There is simply no other way to do some form of automated secured coinjoin mixing with bitcoin technology: you need "trusted parties", and so you need to provide them with sufficient incentive to do so (the master nodes). This implies re-centralisation, governance, and hence, taxes and lucrative happenings for the elite which get richer.
The remaining question is how many master nodes are under independent control. If that number is too small, then the anonymity of the mixing becomes compromised too.
Ok I get it now. So it is no good. But can anyone explain why the price is rising?
It's rising because it's one of the most coherent monetary assets on coinmarketcap, being that it retains bitcoin's blokchain transparency while improving massively on its fungibility to the point that distinguishing characteristics between addresses are effectively eliminated.
Further, Dash has established a balanced approach between reserve and currency markets thats almost unmatched by any other cryptocurrency asset. That's to say that while some proportion of the coin supply is made available by holders on exchanges for trading, a significant proportion of the rest of it is deployed on the network and earns a return for its holders.
In other words, Dash has actually done something to put the full coin supply to work in a monetary sense, while a majority of its competitors remain obsessed with myopic technological gimmicks.
No, you are just paying people to HODL.
I think you need some time to educate yourself about Dash
https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/Official+Documentation
https://www.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dash-WhitepaperV1.pdf
https://www.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf
Ok I get it now. So it is no good. But can anyone explain why the price is rising?
It's rising because it's one of the most coherent monetary assets on coinmarketcap, being that it retains bitcoin's blokchain transparency while improving massively on its fungibility to the point that distinguishing characteristics between addresses are effectively eliminated.
Further, Dash has established a balanced approach between reserve and currency markets thats almost unmatched by any other cryptocurrency asset. That's to say that while some proportion of the coin supply is made available by holders on exchanges for trading, a significant proportion of the rest of it is deployed on the network and earns a return for its holders.
In other words, Dash has actually done something to put the full coin supply to work in a monetary sense, while a majority of its competitors remain obsessed with myopic technological gimmicks.
No, you are just paying people to HODL.
Ok I get it now. So it is no good. But can anyone explain why the price is rising?
It's rising because it's one of the most coherent monetary assets on coinmarketcap, being that it retains bitcoin's blokchain transparency while improving massively on its fungibility to the point that distinguishing characteristics between addresses are effectively eliminated.
Further, Dash has established a balanced approach between reserve and currency markets thats almost unmatched by any other cryptocurrency asset. That's to say that while some proportion of the coin supply is made available by holders on exchanges for trading, a significant proportion of the rest of it is deployed on the network and earns a return for its holders.
In other words, Dash has actually done something to put the full coin supply to work in a monetary sense, while a majority of its competitors remain obsessed with myopic technological gimmicks.
Ok I get it now. So it is no good. But can anyone explain why the price is rising? Manipulation? Adoption? Long term investing from whales?
It seems very illogical for this coin to rise that high if it has no positive attributes.
It seems very illogical for this coin to rise that high if it has no positive attributes.
Last time I looked there were around 6 million coins and well over 3000 MasterModes. One needs 1000 coins for a MN, so that 3 to 4 million coins tied up in MN's.So a lot of the supply is tied up in MN's and not in the market. With a restricted supply we need relatively less demand to boost the price
Dash appears to be marketed slickly too.
So we have a slick marketing campaign and a small supply. Good ingredients for a rising price. Quite bullish.Though I'm not sure what these things mean in the long run
For me the key now is the decentralized budget. Now the new coins are distributed 45% miners, 45% masternodes and 10% for decetralized budget to improve the system (you can see the proposals here -> https://dashcentral.org/budget )
With this 10% now we have around $1 Million/year to pay professionals to improve the Dash Network. Meanwhile our alleged competition is doing nice and noobish collects.
As I said, do not believe anyone here guys (even my own biased opinion, of course).
Do your own research.
Jump to: